Lawrence J. Vilardo
How Judge Vilardo rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Vilardo
Lawrence Joseph Vilardo is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Vilardo received a commission on October 29, 2015.
Judge Vilardo's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Vilardo, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Provide chambers with courtesy copies of motion papers longer than 50 pages.
“The Court requests that courtesy copies of motion papers over 50 pages be provided to Chambers.”
Motions
Unless the court has set a date, notices of motion should omit return dates, and sur-replies require a court order.
“Unless the Court previously provided a date, notices of motion should not contain return dates. Sur-replies will not be accepted unless ordered by the Court.”
Motions
A request for an adjournment or extension must be made at least five days before the deadline with opposing counsel’s consent; otherwise file a motion.
“Counsel may submit letter requests for an adjournment or extension of time only if the request is made at least five days before the deadline and only with the consent of opposing counsel.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents (Amended General Order 167) ↗
- General Order 157: Disclosure of Members, Shareholders, Partners, and Leaders of Business Organization Parties ↗
- General Order 166: Identification Procedures in Courthouses ↗
- General Order 168: Dispositive Referrals of Social Security Appeals to United States Magistrate Judge ↗
How Judge Vilardo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bakhtani v. Marich, he found no record evidence that the decision to terminate Bakhtani's parole was individualized; the termination letter merely repeated the regulation without analysis.
“there is no evidence in the record showing that the decision to terminate Bakhtani's parole was made on a case-by-case basis that ‘attend[ed] to the reasons’ he had received parole. On the contrary, the letter Bakhtani received summarily says only that his parole was being terminated, repeating the language of the relevant regulation without any analysis.”
Procedural preferences
In Bakhtani v. Marich, he applied his earlier Mata Velasquez ruling after finding striking factual similarities and the same government argument about parole termination. He granted the petition and ordered Bakhtani released.
“Based on the record before it, the Court cannot help but reach the same conclusion that it reached in Mata Velasquez.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the petition, Docket Item 1, is GRANTED, and the government's motion to dismiss, Docket Item 7, is DENIED. Because the Court has already ordered De Paz Velasco's temporary release ... the Court now orders that he remain released under his prior order of supervision.”
“the government's motion to dismiss, Docket Item 7, is DENIED.”
“Bakhtani's petition, Docket Item 1, is GRANTED. Within 24 hours of the issuance of this decision and order, Bakhtani must be released ... The respondents' motion to dismiss, Docket Item 8, is DENIED.”
“The respondents' motion to dismiss, Docket Item 8, is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, for the reasons explained above and in Cabrera Martinez, this Court GRANTS the petition, Docket Item 1, and ORDERS the respondents to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days of the date of this order.”
“The respondents' motion to dismiss, Docket Item 22, is DENIED.”
Screening a pro se pretrial detainee's civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, the judge granted in forma pauperis status, allowed the excessive-force and state-law assault/battery claims against one officer to proceed to service, and dismissed the failure-to-protect claim and the official-capacity claims against the municipal defendants with leave to amend within 45 days.
“Thus, the Court GRANTS his motion for a preliminary injunction, Docket Item 7. More specifically, the Court ORDERS the respondents to provide Cabrera Martinez with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days of the date of this decision and order at which the government shall bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is a danger to the community or a flight risk.”
“As a result, the Court DENIES the respondents' motion to dismiss, Docket Item 8, and finds that Cabrera Martinez is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.”
“For the reasons explained above, Mata Velasquez's motion for a preliminary injunction, Docket Item 23, is GRANTED. Within 24 hours of the issuance of this order, Mata Velasquez must be released.”
“Along with its response to the motion for a preliminary injunction, the government also moved to dismiss the amended petition. See Docket Item 42. To the extent that the government's motion to dismiss pertains to Mata Velasquez's procedural due process claim, it is denied.”
“For the reasons explained above, the government's motion to dismiss the amended petition is DENIED. Ceesay's petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. More specifically, within 24 hours of the issuance of this order, Ceesay must be released to a public place under the conditions of his order of supervision, and he must be afforded the ‘opportunity to prepare for an orderly departure’ promised in his Release Notification.”
“For the reasons explained above, the government's motion to dismiss the amended petition is DENIED.”
“Thus, the Court GRANTS his motion for a TRO, Docket Item 8. More specifically, the Court ORDERS the respondents to provide Alvarez Ortiz with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days of the date of this decision and order at which the government shall bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is a danger to the community or a flight risk.”
“As a result, the Court DENIES the respondents' motion to dismiss, Docket Item 12, and finds that Alvarez Ortiz is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.”
“For the reasons stated above, Nevarez Jurado's petition, Docket Item 1, is GRANTED and the government's motion to dismiss his petition, Docket Item 10, is DENIED. Within 24 hours of the issuance of this order, Nevarez Jurado must be released.”
“For the reasons stated above, Nevarez Jurado's petition, Docket Item 1, is GRANTED and the government's motion to dismiss his petition, Docket Item 10, is DENIED.”
“For all the reasons stated above, Mohammad's petition is GRANTED. More specifically, the government shall release Mohammad within 24 hours of this decision and order.”
“For the reasons stated above, United's motion to dismiss will be granted unless, within 45 days of the date of this order, Schenck files a second amended complaint that demonstrates personal jurisdiction over United.”
“For all those reasons, Pierre has not alleged a viable Monell claim against Wyoming County. Nevertheless, and in light of Pierre's pro se status, this Court will permit Pierre to amend his complaint to state a viable Monell claim. ... Wyoming County's motion to dismiss, Docket Item 22, will be granted unless, within 45 days of the date of this order, Pierre files an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies noted above.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled 2018-filed cohort includes Social Security disability appeals, civil forfeiture actions brought by the government against seized property, prisoner habeas and civil-rights petitions, and bankruptcy withdrawal-of-reference matters.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 51 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 60 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 68 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 51 | 68 |
| Sep 2025 | 42 | 65 |
| Mar 2025 | 47 | 74 |
| Sep 2024 | 67 | 77 |
| Mar 2024 | 73 | 83 |
| Sep 2023 | 65 | 70 |
| Mar 2023 | 40 | 57 |
| Sep 2022 | 56 | 48 |
| Mar 2022 | 77 | 56 |
| Sep 2021 | 62 | 64 |
| Mar 2021 | 61 | 67 |
| Sep 2020 | 27 | 55 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, not for Judge Vilardo: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 91 | 8.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,344 | 8.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 56 | 28.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,783 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,768 | 15.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,892 | 15.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,130 | 14.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,177 | 14.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,971 | 14.8 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Vilardo with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Vilardo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Vilardo's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace